Australia Test squad - 2014

[Ian Dargie]

Haha, glad your happy to pick a bloke to bat at 6 off one score of 94.

Just keeping you abreast of recent developments in case you want to adjust your position.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Hang on, dont only figures dating back to 2011 count when assessing a batsman's figures?

What point are you trying to make here?

 

[bird_man]

Just keeping you abreast of recent developments in case you want to adjust your position.

I have said all along that if Faulkner were to come out and score a few hundred than he might be right in the mix for the number 6 spot. He is still yet to score a hundred though so he is a long way off still.

I do recall the selectors coming out at the start of last season and saying that scoring 50's was not enough to get you a test spot, so I don't know why that would have changed just 9 months from then...

 

[Ian Dargie]

I have said all along that if Faulkner were to come out and score a few hundred than he might be right in the mix for the number 6 spot. He is still yet to score a hundred though so he is a long way off still.

Sure. He's a back-up bowler who happens to be batting at No.5 for Australia A. Right?

 

[bird_man]

Sure. He's a back-up bowler who happens to be batting at No.5 for Australia A. Right?

You are pretty much on the money there mate. I think with injuries to Patto and Harris he will get a gig for the Pakistan tour but I only see him getting a game as a bowler.

Obviously the selectors would love for his batting to improve enough so that he can eventually be both a batting and bowling option, which is why they are giving him every opportunity to improve himself, but as it stands at the moment he still has a fair bit of improvement before he's at a level where he can be a top 6 batsman at test level.

Very happy to see him score 94 yesterday, as I've said a number of times, he is a massive talent and will probably play a lot of cricket for Australia in the future.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I think with injuries to Patto and Harris he will get a gig for the Pakistan tour but I only see him getting a game as a bowler.

Hedging early in case he gets picked to play Pakistan?

It will require an awesome reverse ferret if he gets picked in that squad and then selected at No.6.

 

[bird_man]

It will require an awesome reverse ferret if he gets picked in that squad and then selected at No.6.

Yeah, unless he can somehow score a couple of FC hundreds (will he even be playing anymore FC games?) I'd be absolutely amazed if he were picked at number 6. Especially after the selectors made such a big deal about picking batsmen that score hundreds. It would be the first time I could remember an Australian getting picked to bat in the top 6 without a FC century to his name.

 

[Mateyman]

Hedging early in case he gets picked to play Pakistan?

That is not hedging at all. If you think that Faulkner getting a game as a bowler would undermine what anyone over the last 10 pages has been arguing about, then...

 

[Mateyman]

It's not cherry-picking to point to the last three-and-a-half years of Watson's Test career. That is a pretty decent sample size and it shows he has been short of runs for a long time.

You don't want to give anyone else a chance, even though Watson has been struggling. Why not? Why are you so convinced none of the alternatives could improve on Watson's modest recent output?

Why not use the last 2 years? Why not use his career? Because it sounds best if you use the last 3 1/2 years. I'm sick of repeating that I don't want batsmen with FC batting averages of 32 or lower in our side,with 3 or less FC centuries.

 

[frankrizzo]

If we are going to gamble in the uae on a new bat at 6 who can also give us some overs it would surely be maxwell over faulkner.

Right now faulkner is a 4th quick and a test match number 7, only place i could see him getting a gig is some of those dead dead tracks the west indies sometimes produce and we bat haddin at 6 an faulkner at 7/5th bowler.

 

[Ian Dargie]

That is not hedging at all. If you think that Faulkner getting a game as a bowler would undermine what anyone over the last 10 pages has been arguing about, then...

Just interesting to note any subtle softening of positions.

Why not use the last 2 years? Why not use his career?

Because his career average doesn't tell us how he's been performing more recently. He had a purple patch in 2009-10 but since then it's been lean pickings.

Tell me something, when Ricky Ponting was struggling for runs in his last few years, should people have just kept focusing on his career average, which remained totally respectable? Or did it make more sense to look at the fact that, from 2009 onwards, his average dropped away massively to below 40?

But sure, let's shorten the timeframe on Watson. From the start of 2012, he's averaged 33. Wow, that's so much better.

You keep making bad arguments. It's almost like you're just hoping something sticks.

Because it sounds best if you use the last 3 1/2 years.

It's not a matter of how it sounds. It's a matter of what's relevant.

My argument is that he's been short of runs over the past three-and-a-half years. His batting average of 31 in that timeframe confirms this.

As with Ponting, why quote Watson's career average when the issue is his more recent form?

I'm sick of repeating that I don't want batsmen with FC batting averages of 32 or lower in our side,with 3 or less FC centuries.

You keep banging on about FC averages but you're endorsing a guy who's averaged 31 at Test level since the start of 2011. Or 33 since the start of 2012. Take your pick. Either way, he's still been short of runs for a long time.

Instead of talking about FC averages, maybe you should question whether Watson has been good enough at Test level.

When the incumbent isn't doing the job, why not give someone else a chance?

The only argument that matters is whether Watson will do a better job than the alternatives. Given his recent output, he's no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

 

[The_Reaper]

With 5 wickets today and his strong shield performances over a few years where do people think Sayers is at in regards to the UAE?

On gut feel he lacks the pace but he continually performs.

 

[woofles]

With 5 wickets today and his strong shield performances over a few years where do people think Sayers is at in regards to the UAE?

On gut feel he lacks the pace but he continually performs.

My concern is has too much of the Trent Copelands about him, good player no doubt but whether he can step up to the next level is another question. If he keeps putting up wickets he won't be ignored, question will be answered then. I prefer him as a prospect to Ben Cutting though.

 

[PTizzle]

Sayers would be in the pecking order somewhere but you'd think there'd have to be a spate of injuries for him to get a game currently. His performances are always impressive though. Have similar qualms as Woofles about a lack of penetration at the highest level.

Only 26 so definitely wouldn't write him off - taking out the whole top order of the India A side is a good look.

 

[The_Reaper]

Sayers would be in the pecking order somewhere but you'd think there'd have to be a spate of injuries for him to get a game currently. His performances are always impressive though. Have similar qualms as Woofles about a lack of penetration at the highest level.

Only 26 so definitely wouldn't write him off - taking out the whole top order of the India A side is a good look.

For our series against Pakistan

Harris
Pattinson
Bird's still not fit
Siddle in indifferent form.

I'd argue that we've already had a spate of injuries

My gut feel is the same as you and Woofles though but he is performing whenever he plays.

 

[Mateyman]

Just interesting to note any subtle softening of positions.

Because his career average doesn't tell us how he's been performing more recently. He had a purple patch in 2009-10 but since then it's been lean pickings.

Tell me something, when Ricky Ponting was struggling for runs in his last few years, should people have just kept focusing on his career average, which remained totally respectable? Or did it make more sense to look at the fact that, from 2009 onwards, his average dropped away massively to below 40?

But sure, let's shorten the timeframe on Watson. From the start of 2012, he's averaged 33. Wow, that's so much better.

You keep making bad arguments. It's almost like you're just hoping something sticks.

It's not a matter of how it sounds. It's a matter of what's relevant.

My argument is that he's been short of runs over the past three-and-a-half years. His batting average of 31 in that timeframe confirms this.

As with Ponting, why quote Watson's career average when the issue is his more recent form?

You keep banging on about FC averages but you're endorsing a guy who's averaged 31 at Test level since the start of 2011. Or 33 since the start of 2012. Take your pick. Either way, he's still been short of runs for a long time.

Instead of talking about FC averages, maybe you should question whether Watson has been good enough at Test level.

When the incumbent isn't doing the job, why not give someone else a chance?

The only argument that matters is whether Watson will do a better job than the alternatives. Given his recent output, he's no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not actually advocating using his career average. I'm saying last 3 1/2 years is just as arbitrary as anything else.
Anyway, why just drop someone for the sake of it? I don't just make up some arbitrary level of performance and say anyone who doesn't meet this standard will be dropped to make a point. You compare to the alternatives and select the best available. In order to be the best available, I would expect you to average higher at FC level than the incumbent at test level. Surely this is not a hard concept to grasp?

 

[Ian Dargie]

With 5 wickets today and his strong shield performances over a few years where do people think Sayers is at in regards to the UAE?

On gut feel he lacks the pace but he continually performs.

You'd have to say pretty close.

It depends how much they fancy the likes of Behrendorff and Hazlewood.

I could be wrong here, but there seems to be a view in some quarters that Sayers would be suited to English conditions.

 

[The_Reaper]

You'd have to say pretty close.

It depends how much they fancy the likes of Behrendorff and Hazlewood.

I could be wrong here, but there seems to be a view in some quarters that Sayers would be suited to English conditions.

Sayers should tour England next year.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I'm not actually advocating using his career average. I'm saying last 3 1/2 years is just as arbitrary as anything else.

It's not arbitrary when the point I'm making is that he's been short of runs over the past three-and-a-half years.

It makes perfect sense to quote his average in that timeframe to support that point.

Anyway, why just drop someone for the sake of it?

For the sake of it? How do you figure that?

You'd be dropping him because he hasn't been performing.

I don't just make up some arbitrary level of performance and say anyone who doesn't meet this standard will be dropped to make a point.

This is gibberish. No one's being dropped to "make a point". In Watson's case, he's forfeited any right to be an automatic selection and alternatives should be given an opportunity.

You compare to the alternatives and select the best available. In order to be the best available, I would expect you to average higher at FC level than the incumbent at test level. Surely this is not a hard concept to grasp?

For a guy who has made a series of clunkingly bad arguments, you're still pretty keen to adopt a condescending tone. Maybe give that a rest until you manage to make a point that sticks?

You keep pivoting back to this argument about FC averages as though it hasn't already been addressed. Let's just deal with it quickly. Maxwell averages more at FC level than Watson does at Test level. Job done. You can no longer cycle back to this inane defence.

Then, when you scratch the surface and look at Watson's recent form, the bar lowers even further. Watson's been ticking along at 31 since the start of 2011. Henriques and Faulkner both have FC records above that and Henriques, in the past two seasons, has been averaging 61 at FC level. But by your calculations, Watson is definitely still best available? Why? Because his overall average is still padded by runs he scored 4-5 years ago?

The reality is that it's not entirely clear who is the best available. That, however, is not an argument for sticking with an under-performing incumbent. Watson's performance has dropped below a threshold where you can justify continually picking him. We should be giving other guys opportunities.

 

[Mateyman]

It's not arbitrary when the point I'm making is that he's been short of runs over the past three-and-a-half years.

It makes perfect sense to quote his average in that timeframe to support that point.

For the sake of it? How do you figure that?

You'd be dropping him because he hasn't been performing.

This is gibberish. No one's being dropped to "make a point". In Watson's case, he's forfeited any right to be an automatic selection and alternatives should be given an opportunity.

For a guy who has made a series of clunkingly bad arguments, you're still pretty keen to adopt a condescending tone. Maybe give that a rest until you manage to make a point that sticks?

You keep pivoting back to this argument about FC averages as though it hasn't already been addressed. Let's just deal with it quickly. Maxwell averages more at FC level than Watson does at Test level. Job done. You can no longer cycle back to this inane defence.

Then, when you scratch the surface and look at Watson's recent form, the bar lowers even further. Watson's been ticking along at 31 since the start of 2011. Henriques and Faulkner both have FC records above that and Henriques, in the past two seasons, has been averaging 61 at FC level. But by your calculations, Watson is definitely still best available? Why? Because his overall average is still padded by runs he scored 4-5 years ago?

The reality is that it's not entirely clear who is the best available. That, however, is not an argument for sticking with an under-performing incumbent. Watson's performance has dropped below a threshold where you can justify continually picking him. We should be giving other guys opportunities.

I've already said I would consider Maxwell. Aside from Maxwell, Faulkner and Henriques average more or less exactly the same as Watson in their FC careers as Watson's low point during the last 3 1/2 years (If you use a more reasonable timeframe of 2 1/2 years of recent form their FC records drop fully below Watson's recent record). Watson's current form has their career average covered. I would also be interested where you got Henriques' recent stats, because from what I can find, he hasn't played an awful lot of FC cricket of the last 2 years (I can only find about 10 games).

 

[Mateyman]

I've wondered this for a while not having actually watch Copeland's only game: what was so bad about him? He averaged around 30 in his only test? How does this prove he wouldn't be effective?

EDIT: I see he played 3 and averaged 37, still not a huge sample size to have his papers stamped?

 

[bird_man]

I've already said I would consider Maxwell. Aside from Maxwell, Faulkner and Henriques average more or less exactly the same as Watson in their FC careers as Watson's low point during the last 3 1/2 years (If you use a more reasonable timeframe of 2 1/2 years of recent form their FC records drop fully below Watson's recent record). Watson's current form has their career average covered. I would also be interested where you got Henriques' recent stats, because from what I can find, he hasn't played an awful lot of FC cricket of the last 2 years (I can only find about 10 games).

I've had this argument for about 10 pages mate, he does not like to lose an argument so he'll just keep going until you get bored of it.

Apparently it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for someone to come into test cricket and average more at test level than at FC level (and that's only if you pick the certain time frame that he has, if it is career average Faulkner would have to boost his FC by 6 just to match it). Even though when you look at the stats it is rarely done. I think Clarke is the only batsman in our current test team to have done it.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Aside from Maxwell, Faulkner and Henriques average more or less exactly the same as Watson in their FC careers as Watson's low point during the last 3 1/2 years

Look at Henriques's form over the past 2-3 seasons. It's excellent.

Why shouldn't he get another crack given Watson has been so ordinary?

I would also be interested where you got Henriques' recent stats, because from what I can find, he hasn't played an awful lot of FC cricket of the last 2 years (I can only find about 10 games).

And what's his average?

I don't understand why you blokes bend over backwards to defend an incumbent who hasn't been measuring up. In that situation, you have to give other guys a chance.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I've had this argument for about 10 pages mate, he does not like to lose an argument so he'll just keep going until you get bored of it.

That's a bit rich.

You can't even acknowledge that Faulkner is in the mix, despite being inserted at No.5 for Australia A.

You can't accuse me of being stubborn when you can't even reconcile yourself with inconvenient facts.

Apparently it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for someone to come into test cricket and average more at test level than at FC level (and that's only if you pick the certain time frame that he has, if it is career average Faulkner would have to boost his FC by 6 just to match it).

Watson has set the bar pretty low over the past three-and-a-half years. That's a long sample - it's not like I've just cherry-picked one bad series.

I'd have thought the alternatives are plausible chances of coming in and at least matching his average of 31 over that timeframe.

Or do you consider that output to be so impressive that we shouldn't even look at other guys?

 

[Mateyman]

And what's his average?

I don't understand why you blokes bend over backwards to defend an incumbent who hasn't been measuring up. In that situation, you have to give other guys a chance.

I have been able to find 9 games. I'm wondering if you have a larger sample, because 9 games at 60 when you have a career average of 30 means * all IMO.